The European Court of Justice has recently issued several judgments involving disputes over the use of registered trademarks, I would like to take this opportunity, Discuss with the reader about the compulsory use of registered trademark several feelings.

　　2020 years 10 month 22 day, The European Court of Justice published No C-720/18 adjudication. The case involves the logo of Ferrari "Testarossa" Use problem of. What struck me was this, The ruling cited both Switzerland and Germany 1892 A convention signed in 2000 (Frankly speaking, This is the first time I know of such a convention) . adjudication, The convention is still in force, Intermediate control 5. 1 Article provision, The fact that the trademark of one signatory country is put into use in the domain of the other signatory country, May be used to exclude adverse legal consequences that may arise from the failure of the mark to enter into use within the time required by law in its own country.

　　According to this regulation, The fact that a German trademark is used in the Swiss domain, Constitute the evidence of the true use of the German national trademark, Therefore the mark may not be revoked because it has not been used in the German domain. But as the ruling points out, Therein lies a paradox, It is based on the above-mentioned German national trademarks, Filed an objection to a post-EU trademark application, If the EU trademark applicant requires the opponent to prove that the prior trademark has been put into real use in the defense of the objection, Since the opponent cannot provide evidence that the prior trademark has been used in the EU domain (Switzerland is not a member of the European Union——Translator's note) , Will result in the dismissal of the petition.

　　Another decision that caught my attention, 2020 years 9 month 23 day, Eu general court (General Court) Published regulation T-601/19 Number judgment. In the case, Spanish trademark "infinite" Right holder to EU trademark application "in·fi·ni·tu·de" Raise an objection, Both the prior trademark and the disputed EU trademark application are for wine. In the objection procedure described above, The applicant for a disputed trademark requires the opponent to provide evidence of the actual use of the prior trademark. The dissenter submitted a large number of documents, The certificate is attached to the Spanish trademark "infinite" Wine products to Canada, The fact that many countries like Puerto Rico and the United States export.

　　The court accepted the objection's evidence of use, Assess whether there is a risk of confusion or misidentification between disputed trademarks. The court stood by its original opinion in its decision, That is, the geographical scope of the assessment is Spain, The relevant public is the general public with the average level of attention. The prior trademark is the Spanish word trademark, It therefore seems reasonable for the court to limit the relevant sphere to the Spanish sphere, But if you consider that the product is sold and the consumer market is outside the European Union, I'll find out what the court found "Relevant geographical scope" and "Relevant public" Etc, There are discrepancies with the facts of the case. Therefore, Consider the market reality, At least from the general public's point of view, There is a risk of confusion and misidentification within the above target markets, Because of correlation "General public" Consumers in Canada and the United States.

　　In principle, To resolve the conflict between trademarks in the EU, There is no need to consider public factors outside the field. But in cases where the main evidence used is export trade to a third country, It seems more logical, The relevant public shall be professionals engaged in the import and export business of goods, The corresponding assessment should be based on the level of attention of the professional group.

　　The final case I want to discuss with my readers is this, 2020 years 10 month 28 day, The General Court of Justice of the European Union published No T-583/19 Number judgment. Cause mark "FRIGIDAIRE" The right holder fails to provide the trademark on a particular commodity (Washing machine, dishwasher) Sufficient use of evidence, The European Union's Intellectual Property Office revoked its trademark rights on some designated goods.

　　Evidence of the use of the disputed trademark on relevant household appliances submitted by the trademark owner in this case, Including sales vouchers for products purchased by U. S. military bases in Belgium and Germany. The general court held that, The US military bases in the EU covered by the above sales certificates do not fall within the territory of the EU, Therefore, Whereas the trademark owner has failed to provide evidence to prove that the disputed trademark has been put into real use within the EU, The judgment revokes the right to register the trademark in the category of unused goods.

　　As can be seen, There is something unusual about each of the judgments mentioned in this article, It also further clarified the application of trademark law, Any assessment must be based on the circumstances of a particular case.

　　compile: Liu Dan, Esabarry Legal Counsel　　source: Esabaril (ELZABURU) Intellectual property rights